Manglona v. Aldan
CourtSupreme Court of The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands
Date FiledMay 7, 1998
Docket98-003
JudgeTaylor, Villagomez, Lizama
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
BENJAMIN T. MANGLONA, Mayor of ) ORIGINAL ACTION NO. 98-003
Rota; EDWARD U. MARATITA, Chair )
Rota Legislative Delegation; ALEX A. )
APATANG, Chair Rota Municipal Council, )
) JUDGMENT
Petitioners, )
)
v. )
)
THOMAS B. ALDAN, Chair, Board of )
Public Lands; JOAQUIN A. TENORIO, )
Secretary, Department of Lands and Natural )
Resources; BERTHA T. CAMACHO, )
Director of Division of Public Lands of )
Lands and Natural Resources, )
)
Respondents. )
____________________________________)
Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the order of this Court in this matter
has been issued and judgment is hereby entered. Parties are hereby served with a copy of the order
which DENIED the petition for certification of legal question and request for temporary relief.
Entered this 7th dayofMay,1998.
/s/
CRIS M. KAIPAT, Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
BENJAMIN T. MANGLONA, Mayor of Rota; ) ORIGINAL ACTION NO. 98-003
EDWARD U. MARATITA, Chair Rota Legislative )
Delegation; ALEX A. APATANG, Chair Rota )
Municipal Council, )
) ORDER
Petitioners, )
)
v. )
)
THOMAS D. ALDAN, Chair, Board of Public )
Lands, JOAQUIN A. TENORIO, Secretary )
Department of Lands and Natural Resources; )
BERTHA T. CAMACHO, Director Division of )
Public Lands of Lands and Resources, )
)
Respondents. )
__________________________________________)
On May 4, 1999, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certified Legal Question and an Ex-parte
Motion under Com. R. App. P. 27 for temporary relief. Petitioners are seeking a review of Public
Law 10-57 and requesting an order restraining the respondents from taking any steps to enforce the
Writ of Possession signed by the Superior Court on January 5, 1998.
This original action involves facts and issues involved in Commonwealth v. Angelo, et al.,
appeal no. 97-034. In Angelo, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the
Commonwealth on September 9, 1997. The Superior Court denied the appellants’ (Anglo, et al.)
motion for a stay on October 30, 1997.
On November 28, 1997, this Court denied the appellants’ motion for a stay of the Superior
Court’s Order which determined that the appellants were trespassers and directed them to vacate the
public lands on Rota. Appellants are entitled to a stay if they show: (1) a combination of probable
success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions are raised
and the balance of hardship tips sharply in the appellants’ favor. Vaughn v. Bank of Guam, 1 N.M.I.
318, 32 7 (1990). After reviewing the motions, we denied the motion for stay because we were not
convinced that the appellants had demonstrated irreparable harm or that they would succeed on the
merits.
House Legislative Initiative No - 10-3, Section 11 states:
Whenever a dispute atises between or among CommonAealth offirials who are elected by the
people or appointed by the govemor regarding the exercise of their power or responsibilities
under this constitution or any statute, the parties to the dispute may certify to the supreme
court the legal question raised, setting forth the stipulated facts upon which the dispute arises.
In this case, the petitioners have failed to raise any legal question nor have they set forth any
stipulated facts upon which the dispute arises. We find that the issue raised by the petitioner has
already been sufficiently addressed in the briefs in the Anglo appeal.1 Therefore, the petition for
certification of legal question and request for temporary relief is DENIED.2
Entered this 7th day of May 1998.
/s/
MARTY W.K. TAYLOR, Chief Justice
/s/
RAMON G. VILLAGOMEZ, Justice Pro Tem
/s/
JUAN T. LIZAMA, Special Judge
1
Appeal No. 97-034 is currently ready for oral argument.
2
Petitioner should note that facsimile documents in excess of 10 pages violates Com.R.App.P. 25(e)(3).